Toulmin Model of Argument

Stephen Toulmin, originally a British logician, is now a professor at
USC. He became frustrated with the inability of formal logic to explain
everyday arguments, which prompted him to develop his own model of practical
reasoning.

The first triad of his model consists of three basic
elements: the claim, ground, and warrant.

A claim is the point an arguer is trying to make. The
claim is the proposition or assertion an arguer wants another to accept.

The claim answers the question "So, what is your point?"

Example: "You should send a birthday card to Mimi, because she sent
you one on your birthday."

Example: "I drove last time, so this time it is your turn to drive."

There are three basic types of claims:

Fact: claims which focus on empirically verifiable
phenomena; a claim that is simply a fact is not appropriate as a thesis
for an English 1A essay or research paper;

Judgment/value: claims involving opinions,
attitudes, and subjective evaluations of things; a subjective, personal
values-based claim is not appropriate as a thesis for an English
1A essay or research paper;

Policy: claims advocating courses of action that
should be undertaken; this is the type of claim that is an appropriate
thesis for an English 1A essay or research paper.

The term "grounds" refers to the proof or evidence an arguer
offers. Grounds answers the questions, "What is your proof?" or "How
come?" or "Why?"

Grounds can consist of statistics, quotations, reports, findings,
physical evidence, or various forms of reasoning.

Grounds can consist of statistics, quotations, reports, findings,
physical evidence, or various forms of reasoning.

Example: "It looks like rain. The barometer is falling."

Example: "The other Howard Johnson's restaurants I've been in had
clean restrooms, so I'll bet this one has clean restrooms, too."

The warrant is the inferential leap that connects the
claim with the grounds.

The warrant is typically implicit (unstated) and requires the
listener to recognize the underlying reasoning that makes sense of the
claim in light of the grounds.

The warrant performs a "linking" function by establishing a mental
connection between the grounds and the claim

Example: "Muffin is running a temperature. I'll bet she has an
infection." warrant: sign reasoning; a fever is a reliable sign
of an infection.

Example: "That dog is probably friendly. It is a Golden Retriever."
warrant: generalization; most or all Golden Retrievers are
friendly.

Warrants can be based on the following:

Ethos: source credibility, authority

Logos: reason-giving, induction, deduction

Pathos: emotional or motivational appeals

Shared values: free speech, right to know,
fairness, etc.

Note: these categories aren't mutually exclusive; there is
considerable overlap.

The second triad of the Toulmin model involves three
additional elements:

Backing provides additional justification for the
warrant.

Backing usually consists of evidence to support the type of reasoning
employed by the warrant.

The qualifier states the degree of force or probability
to be attached to the claim.

The qualifier states how sure the arguer is about his/her claim

The rebuttal acknowledges exceptions or limitations to
the argument.

The rebuttal admits to those circumstances or situations where the
argument would not hold.

The Toulmin Model asserts that most
arguments consist of the following six parts:

We can also identify three other
important parts of an argument

AssumptionsCounter-examples Implications

Counter-arguments

The Toulmin Model

Claim:
the position or claim being argued for; the conclusion of the
argument.

Grounds: reasons or supporting evidence that
bolster the claim.

Warrant: the principle, provision or chain of
reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to the claim.

Backing:
support, justification, reasons to back up the warrant.

Rebuttal/Reservation: exceptions to the claim;
description and rebuttal of counter-examples and counter-arguments.

Qualification:
specification of limits to claim, warrant and backing. The degree
of conditionality asserted.

Warrants/General
Strategies of Argument

Warrants are chains of reasoning that
connect the claim and evidence/reason. A warrant is the principle,
provision or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to the
claim. Warrants operate at a higher level of generality than a claim or
reason, and they are not normally explicit.

Example:
“Needle exchange programs should be abolished [claim] because
they only cause more people to use drugs.” [reason]

The unstated warrant is: “when you make risky behavior safer you
encourage more people to engage in it.”

There are six main argumentative
strategies via which the relationship between evidence and claim are
often established. They have the acronym “GASCAP.”

Generalization

Analogy

Sign

Causality

Authority

Principle

These strategies are used at various
different levels of generality within an argument, and rarely come in
neat packages - typically they are interconnected and work in
combination.

Common Warrants

1. Argument based on
Generalization

A very common form of
reasoning. It assumes that what is true of a well chosen sample is
likely to hold for a larger group or population, or that certain things
consistent with the sample can be inferred of the group/population.

2. Argument based on Analogy

Extrapolating from one
situation or event based on the nature and outcome of a similar
situation or event. Has links to "case-based" and precedent-based
reasoning used in legal discourse. What is important here is the extent
to which relevant similarities can be established between two contexts.
Are there sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant similarities?

3. Argument via Sign/Clue

The notion that certain types
of evidence are symptomatic of some wider principle or outcome. For
example, smoke is often considered a sign for fire. Some people think
high SAT scores are a sign a person is smart and will do well in
college.

4. Causal Argument

Arguing that a given
occurrence or event is the result of, or is effected by, factor X.
Causal reasoning is the most complex of the different forms of warrant.
The big dangers with it are:

Mixing up correlation with
causation

Falling into the post hoc,
ergo propter hoc trap. Closely related to confusing correlation
and causation, this involves inferring 'after the fact, therefore
because of the fact').

5. Argument from Authority

Does person X or text X
constitute an authoritative source on the issue in question? What
political, ideological or economic interests does the authority have?
Is this the sort of issue in which a significant number of authorities
are likely to agree on?

6. Argument from Principle

Locating a principle that is
widely regarded as valid and showing that a situation exists in which
this principle applies. Evaluation: Is the principle widely accepted?
Does it accurately apply to the situation in question? Are there
commonly agreed on exceptions? Are there "rival" principles that lead
to a different claim? Are the practical consequences of following the
principle sufficiently desirable?

Rebuttals and
Main/Faulty/Return Paths
Unlike many forms of writing, academic arguments will often include
discussions of possible objections and counterarguments to the position
being advanced. Academic arguments typically take place in disciplinary
communities in which a variety of competing or divergent positions
exist. When preparing to "speak" to the community by writing an
argument, writers are aware of the arguments against which they must
build their claims, and of the counterarguments which are likely to
emerge. Dealing with counterarguments and objections is thus a key part
of the process of building arguments, refining them, interpreting and
analyzing them. There are several main reasons for introducing
counterarguments and objections.

1. It demonstrates
that the author is aware of opposing views, and is not trying to "sweep
them under the table." It thus is more likely to make the writer's
argument seem "balanced" or "fair" to readers, and as a consequence be
persuasive.

2. It shows that
the writer is thinking carefully about the responses of readers,
anticipating the objections that many readers may have. Introducing the
reader to some of the positions opposed to your own, and showing how you
can deal with possible objections can thus work to "inoculate" the
reader against counterarguments.

3. By contrasting
one's position with the arguments or alternative hypotheses one is
against, one clarifies the position that is being argued for.

When dealing with objections or counterarguments, authors tend to take
one of three approaches.

Strategic concession:
acknowledgment of some of the merits of a different view. In some
cases, this may mean accepting or incorporating some components of
an authors' argument, while rejecting other parts of it.

Refutation: this involves
being able to show important weaknesses and shortcomings in an
opponent's position that demonstrate that his/her argument ought to
be rejected.

Demonstration of irrelevance:
showing that the issue in question is to be understood such that
opposing views, while perhaps valid in certain respects, do not in
fact meet the criteria of relevance that you believe define the
issue.

How well authors produce rebuttals and deal
with counter-arguments is an important part of how we evaluate the
success of an argument.